According to a report from analysts at Bernstein Research seen by Autocar, the new model is codenamed L560 and is expected to be launched in 2016.

The report also says L560 will be based on the same aluminium platform as the new family of compact Jaguar models and will be made in the same new facility, currently being built at Solihull.

The Bernstein analysts suggest that the Evoque XL could achieve annual sales of up to 80,000 units and is likely to be the most profitable model of the five body styles (four Jaguars and this new Range Rover) being planned on the new aluminium platform.

The new Jaguar crossover — which, Autocar understands, will be smaller than the C-X17 concept — will be priced from about £33,000. The new Evoque XL, meanwhile, will help to drive profits because it is expected to sell at between £41,000 and £55,000 in today’s money.

L560 is also likely to become Range Rover’s most economical model, thanks to a combination of the lightweight aluminium architecture and the all-new ‘Hotfire’ four-cylinder engines currently being developed by JLR. Indeed, the majority of Evoque XL models are likely to be powered by four-cylinder petrol and diesel engines (further reducing overall weight) in various states of tune.

The addition of this model is likely to round off the Range Rover family for the medium term. By the time that the Evoque XL is launched, the brand will stretch from the £30,000 entry-level Evoque to the upcoming long-wheelbase Range Rover, which is expected to have a six-figure price.

Join the debate

Land Rover plans to launch a larger, lightweight Range Rover Evoque XL to slot between the existing car and the Range Rover Sport..

Sounds good. But I think there are still more slots to be filled. For instance, Land Rover should launch another vehicle to slot between Range Rover Evoque XL and the Range Rover Sport. Maybe an Evoque XXL or a Range Rover Sport Mini.

The gap between Evoque XL and RR Sport isn't that big - both are/will be on lightweight alloy platforms and have 7-seat options.

The big omission from this announcement is what platform will the standard Evoque be on - the relatively heavy Ford EUCD-derived platform it currently shares with Freelander 2 or the much lighter alloy platform now intended for small Jaguars and the Evoque XL.

Indeed, it also begs the question which platform will the Freelander replacement use - it seems clear it'll be named within the Discovery family but will it be the ONLY Discovery/Range Rover on a heavy steel platform - that'll hurt it's emissions badly.

The gap between Evoque XL and RR Sport isn't that big - both are/will be on lightweight alloy platforms and have 7-seat options.

The big omission from this announcement is what platform will the standard Evoque be on - the relatively heavy Ford EUCD-derived platform it currently shares with Freelander 2 or the much lighter alloy platform now intended for small Jaguars and the Evoque XL.

Indeed, it also begs the question which platform will the Freelander replacement use - it seems clear it'll be named within the Discovery family but will it be the ONLY Discovery/Range Rover on a heavy steel platform - that'll hurt its emissions badly.

From all the publicity given to the modification of the existing Evoque’s platform, I concluded that JLR had tried to establish that the Evoque platform was now THEIR design, in order to avoid paying “royalties” to Ford!

It is a very reasonable assumption “Ruperts Trooper”, that the,

+ new, small(er), “baby” Discovery (nee Freelander), and

+ eventually the existing Evoque,

will both abandon the relatively heavy Ford EUCD-derived (steel) platform; and, with both then using the much lighter alloy platform (now intended for small Jaguars and the Evoque XL), production could/would/should be concentrated at/moved to Solihull.

That raises a question as to JLR commitment to, and the future role of, the (ex-)Ford facility at Halewood !!

Google maps/earth shows Halewood to be a huge operation, and it is understood Ford still occupies some (most) of the site (working on/preparing transmissions).

Does anyone know if JLR actually own (freehold) that part of the Halewood facility that they occupy/utilise, or is it merely rented/leased from Ford?

RT - do you know the answer to the question I raised towards the end of page one?

I don't know the answer but Wikipedia makes the comment :-

"In March 2008, Ford finalised a deal to sell Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors – part of the Indian based Tata Group, one of the world's largest manufacturers of commercial vehicles. Under the terms of the deal, Ford retained ownership of Halewood's transmission plant, which it operates in collaboration with Getrag."

Which implies that Tata / JLR now own the Halewood car assembly plant.

RT - do you know the answer to the question I raised towards the end of page one?

I don't know the answer but Wikipedia makes the comment :-

"In March 2008, Ford finalised a deal to sell Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors – part of the Indian based Tata Group, one of the world's largest manufacturers of commercial vehicles. Under the terms of the deal, Ford retained ownership of Halewood's transmission plant, which it operates in collaboration with Getrag."

Which implies that Tata / JLR now own the Halewood car assembly plant.

RT, thank you for the reply.

Wiki was one of the first places I looked for an answer . . . that is where I found the information about (Getrag) transmissions.

However, I think it is a case of what they do NOT say, rather than what the do say!

I think this is admitting at 4.3m to make it look broad (its that too!) was a bit of a mistake. Its wider but shorter than even an X1 but wider than an X3 which does nothing useful for interior or boot space. This is obviously the fix.

As to new models I think they should go down size properly and tackle the Yeti market, they are excluding themselves from a part of the market that can't reach their price range but don't want something Freelander size - the current cheapest entry. A proper little SUV but only 4.2m by 1.7m priced from £24K with decent basic kit. Has to be well packaged so boot can take clubs or a dog. And not fashion trinket style, a bit of rough and tumble for those that like to think their 'village' is in the country.

As to new models I think they should go down size properly and tackle the Yeti market

I'd agree with that, perhaps this would be a direction for the new Defender replacement? I can't recall in which of Autocar's JLR articles they said what platform the DC100 would ride on, if it was steel or the new aluminium one? I doubt they could make a profit at this end of the market with a non-conventional platform but I'd say there was room for a little 'mountain goat' in their range once all the £30k+ holes are filled.

It's the fix to the problem that the current Freelander/Evoque are short on space!

The luggage area length with 2nd row seats in use is smaller than any competitor on overall size and way smaller than any competitor on price.

The XL/7-seater should be the normal for both Freelander and Evoque with a short-wheelbase version with 2-doors below that. Then the std/XL version can be sold as 5-seaters with decent luggage space and with 7-seat option.

... as this is a halo-car for Golf (A3) shoppers at Passat+ (A4/Q5) pricing (hence the profitability). The super sized Evoque XL simply provides a halo-car for 3 series / Mondeo shoppers in the 4.7m class...

The tragedy is that even the small Evoque diesel is currently a 35mpg car (per Fuelly) whereas the Yeti - probably the most credible Golf-class SUV by size - is more a 40-45mpg vehicle even though it also uses previous-generation VAG diesels.